get_custom_entry

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. As a read/get operation, one would expect safety expectations to be clear, but the description provides no behavioral details—no mention of return format, error behavior for invalid IDs, authorization requirements, or relationship to other custom-entry tools. The description adds nothing about behavior beyond what the name implies.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence—extremely concise and to the point. It has no filler or redundant phrasing. However, it is likely under-specified rather than optimally concise; the brevity is partly due to lack of useful content rather than disciplined compression.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-ID get operation with one parameter and full schema coverage, the description is functionally adequate. The pattern of 'get X by ID' is well-understood and matches siblings (get_hobby, get_persona, etc.). However, it doesn't clarify whether the returned entry includes related data like tags or whether pagination or partial responses apply, which could matter given the rich custom-entry ecosystem.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single 'id' parameter documented as 'エントリID (UUID)'. The description's mention of 'IDで指定' aligns with the schema, but the description itself adds minimal meaning beyond the schema—it just restates what the schema property already documents. With baseline 3 for high schema coverage, this is acceptable since the schema handles parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'カスタムエントリを取得 (IDで指定)' which means 'Get custom entry (specified by ID)'. The verb 'get' combined with the resource 'custom entry' is clear, and specifying 'by ID' adds a scoping detail. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like get_custom_category, get_hobby, etc., beyond the resource name—though the resource itself ('カスタムエントリ' vs others) provides some differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention that this is for retrieving a single custom entry by ID while list_custom_entries retrieves all, nor any guidance on when custom entries are preferable to other entity types. Usage context is entirely implied by the tool's name and sibling structure.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.